Partisanship & Campaign Event Attendance - Kate Bailey

My research allows for a deeper understanding of American politics and suggests which citizens are likely to be the most engaged. I was motivated to ask the question because I had been discussing politics with a family member who is registered as an independent. The family member happened to be uninterested in the campaign rally happening down the street, neither strongly disliking the candidate, nor liking them to the point they wished to attend. This was strange to me as most other individuals in my life (who happen to be strong partisans) would have either jumped on the chance to attend or stayed as far away from the area as they could. I feel it is important to measure as American politics are so hostile right now, that the country could learn from the proven “indifference” of registered independents.

My research speaks to the themes of political engagement, sorting, and polarization. Political engagement is a given, as attending campaign rallies is a direct indication of engagement. Sorting comes into play when people allow themselves to be allocated into the role of strong democrat or strong republican and thoroughly enjoy the social aspect of it. These groups are usually at conflict with each other forcing them to ideologically separate from another. This also deals with polarization as the sorting causes a political divide.

Partisanship & Event Attendance (Time Trend)

Partisanship & Event Attendance (Regression)

Ideology and Political Engagement - Erin Bostic

My research helps to explain the relationship between political ideology and political participation. My research adds to the understanding about which ideology, Liberals or Conservatives, is more likely to participate politically. I was motivated by the divide between the two ideologies in the last election (2016) and also the increase rate of political participation in the recent years. Also by Putnam’s findings that although more people are becoming politically engaged, less people are voting. The evidence found is important because it gives an idea on which ideology participates more given a controversial issue. This knowledge could help us to predict the participation levels by ideology in the future.

My analysis of trends in political activity between liberals and conservatives over the last 50 years shows that overall, liberals were more likely to politically active than conservatives.

I am also interested in the relationship between policy preferences and political participation. My next graph shows the attitudes about abortion by ideology in 1980 and 2016. The liberals are represented in blue while conservatives. are in red. In both 1980 and 2016 liberals expressed high opinions about abortion being unrestricted while a lot of less conservatives expressed opposite ideas. This graph shows that liberals in both 1980 and 2016 were more politically engaged on the idea of abortion than conservatives.

Ideology and Political Engagement (Time Trend)

Ideology and Attitudes on Abortion

Media Exposure and Engagement - Aleenih Carter-Key

My research investigated the idea of how does mass media impact civic engagement. This research added to my understanding of politics because it helped me really see how much screen time and other media rallies up the masses to get them to participate politically. I was motivated to ask this question because I use mass media very often and I always am exposed to political content; so, I thought that this was a great topic to explore. This knowledge is important because it shows that people who are more often exposed to certain types of media are more likely than those who are not exposed to certain types of media to be civically engaged.

My first coefficient plot presents the results of a logit regression of the likelihood of voting. This model shows that people that listen to the radio or read newspapers frequently are more likely to vote than people who watch TV frequently, even when controlling for other sources of media

My next plot presents the results of a logit regression of the likelihood of attending a campaign event or rally. My results show that people who frequently read the newspaper and listen to the radio for political information are significantly more likely to go to meetings than those who watch tv.

Media Exposure and Voting (Regression)

Media Exposure and Campaign Event Attendance (Regression)

Media Consumption and Engagement - Hannah Davis

My research shows that consuming election related content on certain types of media, specifically newspaper and radio, increases the likelihood that someone votes. Understanding what motivates the public to vote helps political scientists understand trends in society. It also helps campaigns focus their efforts where they will make the biggest impact. For example, according to my research, people who watch election related content on TV are not as likely as people who do the same on the radio or newspaper to vote, so campaigns should put more energy into newspaper and radio campaign content because those voters are the most likely to actually vote for them.

Decline in Media Consumption (Time Trend)

Media Consumption and Voting (Regression)

Parental Nativity and Participation - Claire Coppola

My research looks at the relationship between parent nativity and an individual’s likelihood of voting. Using Campbell’s socialization theory (2006) and Putnam’s research (2000) on ties to one’s community, I argue that individuals with native-born parents are more likely to vote and participate politically. I posed this research question because we can learn a lot about civic and political behavior from where one is from. This means that foreign-born parents’ engagement will differ depending on where they are from, and these norms may be passed on to the child through socialization. This knowledge is important because it can tell politicians which groups of people (for example, Asian immigrants) are more likely or less likely to participate, and therefore they know which groups to campaign to.

My first figure displays a graph showing a comparison over time, from 1950 to 2016, of the likelihood of voting by parent nativity. The 2016 results show a negative correlation between having foreign-born parents and voting, whereas in 1950 there was a positive correlation between having foreign-born parents and voting. Through my research I found that one possible explanation for this outcome is that the origin of immigrants in the mid 1900s and the origin of immigrants in the 2000s were drastically different.

My next figure is a coefficient plot of the results of a logit regression depicting the relationship between having a native-born parent and partisanship. From these regressions we can conclude that there is a positive correlation between having native-born parents and being a Republican, and also a positive correlation between having foreign-born parents and being a Democratic.

Parental Nativity and Voting (Time Trend)

Parental Nativity and Patisan ID (Regression)

Gender and Political Ideology - Peyton Cox

My research argues that gender and political ideology have a relationship because of gender ideology, specifically ideas of gender roles. These findings are important because they will show why women are more likely to be moderate in their views and why men are more likely to be extreme. This is important because it can display why there is such a gender divide in politics today.

My first figure is a graph showing the change in the republican vote share over time by gender between the years 1950 and 2016. The purple line represents the proportion of males that voted republican, and the green line represents the proportion of females that voted republican.

My next figure is a density plot of the female population that identifies as either an extreme liberal, a liberal, a weak liberal, moderate, a weak conservative, a conservative, or an extreme conservative. The graph on the left shows the year 1980, and the graph on the right shows the year 2016.

Republican Vote Share by Gender (Time Trend)

Predictors of Political Ideology (Regression)

Partisanship, Trust, ans Welfare Attitudes - Ceci Creissen

Stereotypes about welfare recipients led me to question whether welfare was a polarizing issue. I wanted to understand whether trust in the government and party membership could predict an individual’s views on welfare.

My first figure is a graph that shows the relationship between trust in the government and attitudes on welfare over time from 1970-2016. The red line represents individuals with a low trust in the federal government and the blue line represents individuals with high levels of trust in the federal government. From this graph, it can be concluded that people who trust the government tend to have a higher view of welfare, but both high trust and low trust people show a lot of variation in attitude over the years. Starting in 1970, both groups show increasingly positive feelings towards Welfare. Both groups experience a decline and sharp increase from 1990-2000 and in the early 2000s both groups show another increase. Ultimately, Americans who do not trust the government tend to have more negative feelings about welfare, but the attitude’s of both groups tend to vary around the same time and in the same direction. This makes me think that there must be another factor influencing public opinion on welfare. Future research is needed.

My next figure is a linear regression of level of trust in government on welfare attitudes. This model shows that race, ethnicity, income, and gender all have a positive relationship with warmer attitudes toward welfare recipients. Having a higher level of education, and self-identifying as conservative politically are associated with more negative attitudes toward welfare recipients. Controlling for all of these other factors, having greater trust in the federal government is associated with more positive attitudes toward welfare recipients.

Welfare Attitudes by Government Trust (Time Trend)

Welfare Attitudes by Government Trust (Regression)